On Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 12:39:20 AM, martin krafft wrote: > also sprach Jeff Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.12.0931 +0200]: >> Well in some cases, such as debugging an undetected spam, it's >> quite useful to see the entire message to determine whether the >> results can be duplicated on another system. If so, it can be >> a genuine bug in SA. So there are times when it's useful to >> forward spams to these lists.
> Well, how about compressing them, or putting them online and posting > a link? Plain text is probably better than compressed, but putting messages on a web site is a reasonable alternative to posting. > sooner or later, the spam volume here will increase. If SpamAssassin is working well, then the spam that it doesn't catch should not increase much. However if it is failing to detect some new class of spam, then it's important to update SpamAssassin to catch them. In order to do that requires examples and some coding. If no one mentions these new types of spams, then they won't get caught. Therefore it's important to share information about new types of spam so improvements and updates can be made. This only applies to spams that SpamAssassin does not already successfully detect, i.e. new, undetected classes. > Thus, by all means, spam filter. It's generally considered poor practice to apply spam filters to spam discussions. You're free to disagree, of course, but such a position will be in a minority and not widely accepted. Jeff C. -- Jeff Chan mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.surbl.org/
